Big Casino Wins and Jackpots

[Rob.Singer]

Since 99.9999% of all VP play is -EV, it is easy to see that almost all RFs are on -EV plays. All those casinos are not losing money on these -EV players or they would not be in business. So, tell me again why an AP would care one twit.

Most casinos continuously offer plays over 100% with their -EV games, and these AP's chase after them all the time--just as planned out. These casinos are not losing money either or they would not offer these promotions nor would they be in business if the promos were a loser. And they DEFINITELY would not allow anyone who constantly wins as you, Dancer, Jean Scott etc. claim to do, to keep coming in to do it all over again and again. Indian casinos are especially sensitive to consistent/long-term winners.

AP's always want the conversation to go one way, which is their way. But turn up the heat with logic and all they do is turn up the BS.

[Rob.Singer]

**IF** Rob's strategies actually worked, the casinos would be out of business.

You walk into a casino. How many people do you see playing 25 cent denom? 50 cent? dollar? etc.

Most people are playing at the 25 cent denom. Few are playing at the higher denom.

The same is with Rob's BS (Bullsh**) strategy -- most of the play will be on the 25 cent denom (or whatever the starting denom is). Some will be on higher denom, and a little will be on the highest denom for that strategy.

Given that most players are complete idiots and probably use Rob's "special plays" most of the time ----- not because they know of these special plays, but because they're degenerates and are chasing losses with their idiotic stratgy.....

If you think about it, everyone is playing a part in Rob's strategy. some are at the 25 cent level and others at the $100 level.

If Rob's strategy worked, they'd be out of business.

If you ever read with understanding instead of taking snippets and reading your own theory into it, you might be capable of making a cogent point now and then.

Remember reading where my play strategy must be played 100% exactly as I play it in order to have consistent success like I've had?

I suggest you go back to the drawing board, and stay away from the drinking before visiting the forum. You'd be more impressive that way.

[redietz]

From a purely logical perspective, one of the issues with Rob's strategies is that you have to draw the line somewhere, but Rob does not say specifically where. I can't believe people do not bring this up each time Rob's strategies are discussed.

For example, Rob says he can win at 99% games. Okay, well, obviously the next question is, "Can his strategies win at 98% games? How about 97% games?" At some point, and Rob has never on this forum been clear about this, his strategies will fail. Where is that point?

On the flip side, the criticism is that AP's in video poker constantly add fluff and comp percentages and such to pad their alleged income. Rob makes an excellent point with this observation. However, at some point, one has to acknowledge that AP's will win if the percentages are tilted far enough in their favor no matter their lack of discipline, or personal characteristics, or whatever. So if there is 2% cash back, can you really argue that AP's lose? If so, how about at 3% cash back? At some point, you have to acknowledge that they win.

Now the problem with all of this is that if you do indeed acknowledge that Rob's strategies work at 98% games and fail at 94% games, or that AP's win at 105% projected EV, then the entire argument regarding "percentage return doesn't matter" fails. It collapses.

I have no idea how proponents of Rob's strategies circumvent this logic.

[coach belly]

Now the problem with all of this is that if you do indeed acknowledge that Rob's strategies work at 98% games and fail at 94% games, or that AP's win at 105% projected EV, then the entire argument regarding "percentage return doesn't matter" fails. It collapses.

I have no idea how proponents of Rob's strategies circumvent this logic.

Singer naysayers do not acknowledge that Rob's strategies work at 98% games,
and Rob does not acknowledge that his strategies fail at 94% games.

So there is no logic to circumvent, your hypothesis is wrong.

For video poker, my understanding is that the EV includes projecting a royal to be hit every x number of hands.

But what is the element of ruin if you don't hit a royal?

What good is 105% EV if you lose your bankroll? Do APs have an infinite bankroll?

[redietz]

Coach needs clarification, so let me ask him, "At what percentage return do YOU think Rob's strategies fail?" Also, "At what percentage return do YOU think AP's strategies succeed?"

The only "hypothesis" I'm suggesting is that Rob will acknowledge that his strategies fail at some return percentage. That's not much of a hypothesis, considering that if Rob's sane, he will acknowledge that.

[coach belly]

I'm not that familiar with either Rob's strategies or AP strategies, other than what I've read here.

I don't know what games you are talking about that return 94%.

I believe Rob maintains that his system is to be applied to specific games,
not the 94% games that you are thinking about.

My understanding is that his system revolves around a betting progression
for non-wild VP that derives most of it's value from hitting quads and above.

The different payback % for these machines are all close enough not to affect his system,
even 6-5 bartop or something like that won't affect him.

But Rob is the expert, so he can comment at what percentage his strategies will fail.

Can you enlighten me as to what the AP strategies for VP would include?

[Alan Mendelson]

If I recall Rob isn't concerned as much about pays on full houses and flushes. His special plays are designed to primarily hit quads.

His win goals can be used on any paytable.

Since VP returns vary based on pays for full houses and flushes redietz's question isn't relevant to Rob's system.

[redietz]

If I recall Rob isn't concerned as much about pays on full houses and flushes. His special plays are designed to primarily hit quads.

His win goals can be used on any paytable.

Since VP returns vary based on pays for full houses and flushes redietz's question isn't relevant to Rob's system.

I open the floor as to the relevance of what I just said to Rob's systems.

Alan, at what point do YOU acknowledge that Rob's systems will fail?


Note: For those familiar with scientific inquiry, yes, this is simply another way of discerning whether Rob's systems can be proven to fail and whether his adherents will acknowledge they can be proven to fail. If systems or hypotheses cannot be disproven, then they fall under the aegis of religion, not science.


So, to the point at hand, are Rob's adherents saying that Rob's systems work on ALL current bonus vp games, or are there current existing bonus games for which Rob's systems cannot work? If they work only on specific games, are there pay table limitations and what are these limitations? These are really obvious, basic questions that I have not seen addressed here.

Note Two: These are non-adversarial, basic questions that Rob's adherents should be able to easily answer. They aren't insults; they aren't aspersions. They are basic, clear, obvious questions.

[slingshot]

I open the floor as to the relevance of what I just said to Rob's systems.

Alan, at what point do YOU acknowledge that Rob's systems will fail?


Note: For those familiar with scientific inquiry, yes, this is simply another way of discerning whether Rob's systems can be proven to fail and whether his adherents will acknowledge they can be proven to fail. If systems or hypotheses cannot be disproven, then they fall under the aegis of religion, not science.


So, to the point at hand, are Rob's adherents saying that Rob's systems work on ALL current bonus vp games, or are there current existing bonus games for which Rob's systems cannot work? If they work only on specific games, are there pay table limitations and what are these limitations? These are really obvious, basic questions that I have not seen addressed here.

Note Two: These are non-adversarial, basic questions that Rob's adherents should be able to easily answer. They aren't insults; they aren't aspersions. They are basic, clear, obvious questions.

Rob's strategies fail whenever they hit a losing session. They win whenever he hits a winning session. With short term goals, the winning sessions will be more than the losing sessions. Even a dork like me gets it.

[arcimede$]

Most casinos continuously offer plays over 100% with their -EV games, and these AP's chase after them all the time--just as planned out. These casinos are not losing money either or they would not offer these promotions nor would they be in business if the promos were a loser. And they DEFINITELY would not allow anyone who constantly wins as you, Dancer, Jean Scott etc. claim to do, to keep coming in to do it all over again and again. Indian casinos are especially sensitive to consistent/long-term winners.

Casinos may offer a few +EV games in NV but it is not true for most states. If a person does not know how to play the games correctly the game becomes -EV for that player. The vast majority of players do not understand optimal strategies nor do they care about them. Hence, my statement is 100% accurate.

The few players that know how to achieve +EV on VP can be ignored by casinos. They represent a round off error in their business model. This does not mean casinos don't make a few mistakes from time to time and provide large advantages. It is a few smart players that find these and milk them. There are many examples of players being 86ed for this kind of activity.

AP's always want the conversation to go one way, which is their way. But turn up the heat with logic and all they do is turn up the BS.[/QUOTE]

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, at what point do YOU acknowledge that Rob's systems will fail?

I don't know. I don't follow it nor do I play it, nor do I fully understand it.

What I do agree with -- and use -- is the use of win goals and loss limits.

As for the rest of it-- I don't use special plays (I play conventional strategy) and I am pretty much clueless to the rest of the "strategies."

My biggest complaint about Rob's system comes right from his own mouth: you have to play it 100% perfectly, and who the heck knows what 100% perfect is? Since the use of special plays will vary (sometimes he uses them, sometimes he doesn't) and since his other strategies depend on different games that someone might not know or play, who is really able to evaluate it?

[arcimede$]

Rob's strategies fail whenever they hit a losing session. They win whenever he hits a winning session. With short term goals, the winning sessions will be more than the losing sessions. Even a dork like me gets it.

Yes, but the losing sessions will average higher losses which completely cancel out the winnings. Over time this nets out to the EV of the play. The big difference is the variance. The variance goes sky high which means the spread of results will be greater.

[arcimede$]

As for the rest of it-- I don't use special plays (I play conventional strategy) and I am pretty much clueless to the rest of the "strategies."

My biggest complaint about Rob's system comes right from his own mouth: you have to play it 100% perfectly, and who the heck knows what 100% perfect is? Since the use of special plays will vary (sometimes he uses them, sometimes he doesn't) and since his other strategies depend on different games that someone might not know or play, who is really able to evaluate it?

In general his special plays lower the return and also reduce the chance of hitting a big winner. They are doubly bad.

[slingshot]

Yes, but the losing sessions will average higher losses which completely cancel out the winnings. Over time this nets out to the EV of the play. The big difference is the variance. The variance goes sky high which means the spread of results will be greater.

Yes, if you think you HAVE to play ALL the sessions on a visit.By having a short term win goal and having a loss limit, the variance is much lower.

[arcimede$]

Yes, but the losing sessions will average higher losses which completely cancel out the winnings. Over time this nets out to the EV of the play. The big difference is the variance. The variance goes sky high which means the spread of results will be greater.

Yes, if you think you HAVE to play ALL the sessions on a visit.By having a short term win goal and having a loss limit, the variance is much lower.

No, the mathematical variance is not based on the number of visits. It is based on the game and strategy used. You are probably thinking of your own ups and downs which are partly based on variance and partially just random.

[slingshot]

The only way I understand it is in actualy play. A short time ago when i was made fun of and challenged that if the strategy worked, it should work EVERY session. I felt pressured but didn't know how to answer so I broke protocol and played 7 $100 sessions of 25c rtt sessions-winning 5 out 7 for a measley $30 profit.Had I stopped on the second session of hitting 4 A's on ddbp for an overall profit of $100 I would have been better off and I was $50 above my win goal. $100 is a good win for a quarter player.
I would also like to add that if I had not made a special play on 2 0f the 7 games, I would have lost-probably- as I hit quads on bp for measley $10 wins. One was holding a single high card instead of 2 and drawing the other 3. The other was hitting quads on a razgu for about the same amount.

[Alan Mendelson]

In general his special plays lower the return and also reduce the chance of hitting a big winner. They are doubly bad.

Let's be clear about this:

The RETURN of the game is defined by the pay table. It has nothing to do with what individual plays a player might make, or what holds he makes.

I'm not sure you are correct that the special plays reduce the chance of hitting a big winner all the time. I think they might reduce the chance of hitting the biggest winners when you drop a kicker, but they might increase the chances of hitting other big winners.

[jbjb]

The RETURN of the game is based on THE PAYTABLES "AND" OPTIMAL PLAY. Just another reason you civilians have no clue what you're talking about. Making a sub-optimal hold REDUCES the payback.

[slingshot]

I have no problem understanding special plays as it's simply a matter of choosing a hold that may afford the opporunity to win a goal. The two most controversial special plays that Rob made are controversial only because it made it seem he was able to manufacture a win by making them. The simple truth is they were the only option to win he had-i.e., he should have lost his ass-but he took the last-ditch effort, if you wanna call it that-and as luck would have the hands filled. Most forget about the many times the special plays didn't come.

[Alan Mendelson]

The RETURN of the game is based on THE PAYTABLES "AND" OPTIMAL PLAY. Just another reason you civilians have no clue what you're talking about. Making a sub-optimal hold REDUCES the payback.

You just said it: making a sub-optimal return reduces the payback but it does not reduce the return. The return is FIXED. 8/5 Bonus Poker has a fixed return. Your payback will vary.